I always see these threads & TLs where the US conquers and annexes Canada either during the ARW or the war of 1812, but would it have been more plausible to instead just buy Canada at some point in history?

Even if such an idea were remotely interestsed I tend to think that it's likely that at first Washington wouldn't have funds enough to even make a realistic offer and later London wouldn't give up the province for anything.

I always see these threads & TLs where the US conquers and annexes Canada either during the ARW or the war of 1812, but would it have been more plausible to instead just buy Canada at some point in history?

What do you mean by "more plausible"? A plausible scenario in which The UK would, w/o being compelled, agree to sell all of Canada (Rupert's Land, Upper & Lower Canada, the Maritimes and the Pacific coast) to the US is difficult to imagine.

Something like that.
That though is doing something with effects that dwarf the initial question. IMO when that has to be done to make something happen then the answer to the initial question is asb.

No I wasn't thinking about that, as far as I know Canada wasn't really providing the Empire a lot of money, and after the 1840's the british knew if there was another war they wouldn't be able to defend Canada (like why the russians sold Alaska, they feared they would lose it to the British without getting any sort of compensation) so what if they instead just decided to sell it.

Sir no Brit or Canadian on this board would ever agree to any dismantling of the empire, and will shoot down any suggestion of the sort. But the only real possibility is maybe the purchase of Rupert's land from what British Variant trading company owned it. Even that is a long shot.

No I wasn't thinking about that, as far as I know Canada wasn't really providing the Empire a lot of money, and after the 1840's the british knew if there was another war they wouldn't be able to defend Canada (like why the russians sold Alaska, they feared they would lose it to the British without getting any sort of compensation) so what if they instead just decided to sell it.

Not a chance, any British government that attempted this would be out of office before they finished signing the treaty. Back before the death of Prince Albert and Victoria's withdrawel from public life the Crown still had real authority over the Government (as theorhetically is still the case). They served at the pleasure of the Crown and could be dismissed from office at any time.

Allso the treaty would never have got through the Lords. There was no Parliament Act then and no Life Peers appointed by the Government. If the Lords kept blocking a bill there was nothing the Government could do about it. It's one of the reasons Gladstone failed to get his Irish Home Rule Bills passed.

No I wasn't thinking about that, as far as I know Canada wasn't really providing the Empire a lot of money, and after the 1840's the british knew if there was another war they wouldn't be able to defend Canada (like why the russians sold Alaska, they feared they would lose it to the British without getting any sort of compensation) so what if they instead just decided to sell it.

If enough Americans flood into British Columbia during the 1850s & '60s in search of gold a campaign to purchase the region could possibly be launched. If there are enough American shareholders/investors in the HBC, it's possible that a drive to sell Rupert's Land to the US could gain steam. If confederation fails in 1867, then eventually the US might be in a position to make an offer on British Columbia. After the 1840s/'50s there is no similarity between Russian Alaska and eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec & the maritimes). Russian Alaska was sparsely populated and those who were there had no voice or political power. Eastern Canada had a growing population and the people there had an increasingly "loud" voice and political power. How many Québécois (and yes, I know that this is a 20th century term/word) would submit to the sale of their land and by extension themselves, to the Americans? How many Ontarians would?

Sir no Brit or Canadian on this board would ever agree to any dismantling of the empire, and will shoot down any suggestion of the sort. But the only real possibility is maybe the purchase of Rupert's land from what British Variant trading company owned it. Even that is a long shot.

The British are unlike Mexicans, Spaniards, Frenchmen, or Danes, you see.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iori

Don't take this the wrong way, it's mean in a more neutral, observational manner, but you sort of have the general look of a young politician.

How many of those settlers were actualy Americans as opposed to those who had recently landed in American ports in search of a new life?

Bear in mind that I said "if enough Americans ...", and in OTL there certainly not enough to launch such a campaign. Regarding your specific question, I've not seen any consistent concrete numbers, only guesstimates.

The British are unlike Mexicans, Spaniards, Frenchmen, or Danes, you see.

Well the parts of their empires which they flogged off were usually pretty sparsely populated so it's apples and oranges. Canada had several hundred thousand people in it IIRC by the early 19th century so they would probably present a bit of a barrier to the coming of the inevitable glorious pan-continental Empire of Liberty. No British government is going to sell off a territory that populous or integral, and even if by some strange process of thought they tried, I'm not sure what the Canadians would have to say about it. One suspects they wouldn't be too happy about being sold by their government like cattle and would probably resist such a move.

Rupert's Land is too far north IMO - I can't see any government selling off land that far 'inside' the British sphere of influence.

BC and with it probably the Yukon could definitely go American without things gettting really screwy, but Central Canada and the Maritimes have to be completely different creatures than OTL. It might not take a lot to find a scenario where Britain more or less gives up on the America's, but the population would not at any point accept being sold to the states. My impression is that at just about any time Canada would declare it own independence by force before allowing itself to be sold off. As much of a cliche as it is, an awful lot of the Canadian identity is, and even more so was, tied up in being NOT American as much or more so than in being loyal to the empire. Also bear in mind that the ties were so strong that even in the 20th century a Nova Scotian was able to end up PM in in Britain.

I always see these threads & TLs where the US conquers and annexes Canada either during the ARW or the war of 1812, but would it have been more plausible to instead just buy Canada at some point in history?

Hey there.....Long time, no see.

To be honest, it would probably be a bit of a challenge at any point in history. Your best bet, I think, is to get Great Britain into an economic bind somehow; maybe they've just lost a war and they need money fast. I don't know about the Canadas per se but Rupert's Land wouldn't be too much of an issue, under the right circumstances.

In any case, buying off Rupert's Land would require a POD before Canada's Confederation, and possibly no later than perhaps 1850 or so.

In real life, the British offered to give us British Columbia and bits of Western Canada, in exchange for forgiving some things they did to support the confederacy. We asked for money instead, because at the time, even the US didn't care about British Columbia. Highsight's a bitch huh?

But yeah, have the US accept that, and we've got British Columbia and a good chunk of Alberta. Canada, which didn't exist until two years later, may not even come into existence, not as we know it. We may see two or three different nations come out of British North America instead, and maybe the Hudson Bay Company sells Ruperts land to the US.